scholarly journals 2. Competition Law and Human Rights: Striking a Balance Between Business Freedom and Regulatory Intervention

2020 ◽  
pp. 22-36
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Business Freedom ◽  
Regulatory Intervention

scholarly journals PERAN NOTARIS DALAM MENCEGAH KETERLAMBATAN PELAPORAN MERGER PADA REZIM PERSAINGAN USAHA [THE ROLE OF NOTARIES IN PREVENTING DELAYS IN REPORTING MERGERS IN BUSINESS COMPETITION REGIONS]

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Lita Paromita Siregar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Warning Letter ◽  
Corporate Action ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Bahasa Indonesia

<em>In accordance with Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Competition Law, every corporate action that causes monopoly must be notified to the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in less than 30 (thirty) days. However, not all entrepreneurs are aware of this provision. As consequence of the delay, entrepreneurs are potentially subject to wide range of sanctions starting from warning letter, fines, to the worst scenario which is the cancellation of the corporate action. Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Company Law governs that all corporate action including mergers, acquisition and consolidation should be drawn in form of notarial deed and the Notary has an access to report such action to the Minister of Law and Human Rights if necessary. While the entrepreneurs appear before the Notary to make merger, acquisition or consolidation deed, the Notary may advise the entrepreneurs to notify KPPU if such merger is potentially fulfill certain condition under Law No.5 of 1999. However, Notary must also be aware that his role is limited by his responsibility to keep private information disclosed by the party before him. In connection with those conditions, this research provides elaboration on how Notary should take a role in merger action and his limitation in it.</em><p><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT: </strong>Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Persaingan Usaha mengatur bahwa dalam hal terjadi aksi korporasi yang menyebabkan monopoli, maka pelaku usaha wajib untuk memberikan pemberitahuan atas peristiwa tersebut dalam jangka waktu 30 (tiga puluh) hari kepada Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU). Akan tetapi, tidak semua pelaku usaha memahami ketentuan ini. Oleh sebab itu, pada beberapa kasus pelaku usaha dikenai sanksi yang bervariasi, mulai dari surat teguran, denda dalam jumlah besar, hingga pembatalan<em> </em>aksi korporasi tersebut. Sehubungan dengan kondisi ini, Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas mengatur bahwa setiap aksi korporasi yang meliputi penggabungan, peleburan dan pengambilalihan akuisisi harus dituangkan persetujuannya oleh para pemegang saham dalam suatu akta notariil dan dilaporkan oleh Notaris kepada Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia apabila diperlukan. Sehubungan dengan pengaturan tersebut, maka setiap kali para pelaku usaha hadir di hadapan Notaris untuk membuat akta<em> </em>atas aksi korporasi, Notaris dapat mengambil peran untuk mencegah terjadinya keterlambatan pemberitahuan tersebut melalui pemberian penyuluhan kepada para penghadap. Akan tetapi, Notaris juga harus tahu bahwa perannya tersebut juga terbatas pada kewajibannya untuk menjaga informasi dari para pihak yang menghadapnya. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut, penelitian ini mencoba untuk mengelaborasi peran Notaris dalam mencegah keterlambatan pemberitahuan tersebut sejauh mana peran yang dapat diambil Notaris sehubungan dengan hal tersebut.</p>

scholarly journals The Robathin v Austria Ruling by the European Court of Human Rights: Some Preliminary Considerations from a Competition law Perspective

2014 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Pablo Figueroa Regueiro ◽  
Yulia Tosheva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
European Court

<p>Este artículo analiza el caso Robathin v Austria del TEDH, en el que se estableció que ciertas investigaciones e incautaciones de datos electrónicos llevados a cabo por la policía austríaca en el despacho de un abogado resultaron contrarios al artículo 8 del Convenio</p>

scholarly journals The Right to Food and Buyer Power

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1190-1244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aravind R. Ganesh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Food Supply ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
Food Supply Chains ◽  
Buyer Power ◽  
The Right

AbstractModern global food supply chains are characterized by extremely high levels of concentration in the middle of those chains. This paper argues that such concentration leads to excessive buyer power, which harms the consumers and food producers at the ends of the supply chains. It also argues that the harms suffered by farmers are serious enough as to constitute violations of the international human right to food, as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and more specifically, in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. World competition law regimes cannot ignore these human rights imperatives. To a certain extent, these imperatives can be accommodated under existing consumerist competition law theories by the interpretive mechanism of conform-interpretation. However, when one comprehends the truly global scale of modern food supply chains, it becomes obvious that conform-interpretation alone will not suffice. Instead, the protection of a minimum level of producer welfare congruent to those producers’ right to a minimum adequate level of food must find a place among the aims of any credible theory of competition law. Moreover, the same globalized nature of these food supply chains means that current doctrines of extraterritorial jurisdiction of competition control have also to be revised.

Reductionist Intellectual Property Protection and Expansionist (and “Prodevelopment”) Competition Rules as a Human Rights Imperative? Enhancing Technology Transfer to the Global South

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-272
Author(s):  
Klaus D. Beiter
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Global South ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
Dissemination Of Technology

Abstract Increasingly, the economy of industrialised countries moves away from being based on a multiplicity of independent innovators to one characterised by cross-licensing and the pooling of intellectual property (IP) rights. Competition law is accorded a more limited role. Refusals to license or restrictive licence terms are tolerated. This paradigm emphasises the innovation at the expense of the dissemination rationale of IP and competition law. The pressure on developing countries is to follow suit. However, this approach jeopardises overcoming the technology dependence of these states. Yet, the political consensus underlying the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was that, in exchange for IP rights protection, a transfer and dissemination of technology benefiting the global South would occur. This has not taken place so far. Taking this promise seriously requires according an enhanced, more social role to competition law. Articles 8(2), 31 and 40 of TRIPS – the TRIPS competition rules – could be interpreted in a way to accomplish this. This article argues in favour of a “prodevelopment” approach to IP-related competition law. This could be viewed as a demand of the rule of law at the international level. On the one hand, treaties such as TRIPS are to be interpreted in good faith. On the other, public interest and human rights considerations justify, as it were, require, such an approach. Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS can play a crucial role in this regard. They reflect such public interest considerations as “object and purpose” of TRIPS. They also provide a link to international human rights law (IHRL). IHRL protects a (group) right to development, confirming “policy space” for World Trade Organization (WTO) members and the freedom to opt for a competition law model that facilitates dissemination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further protects various economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). These rights may be said to give rise to “transfer and dissemination of technology” as a human right. Duties under the right to development and “territorial” and “extraterritorial” human rights obligations (ETOs) under the ICESCR support an understanding of competition law which is pro development, which takes account of local access and welfare needs. The article concludes with a set of 10 consolidated considerations for a “prodevelopment” IP-related competition law.

scholarly journals Life after Menarini: The Conformity of the Hungarian Competition Law Enforcement System with Human Rights Principles

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (18) ◽  
pp. 35-60
Author(s):  
Tihamér Tóth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
National Level ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Competition Law Enforcement

The corporate human rights development was fueled by the increasing amount of fines imposed on both European and national level. For many years, the jurisprudence of the ECtHR has classified administrative, including competition law enforcement as a quasi-criminal process during which human rights shall be respected to a certain extent. This paper strives to explain the evolution of competition law enforcement in Hungary, with procedural safeguards protecting undertakings having come close to the level of protection provided under criminal law. Of the numerous human rights relevant in competition law enforcement the paper will focus on institutional check-and-balances, and the appropriate level of judicial review. The thoroughness of the judicial review of administrative decisions resulting in fines is critical to the analysis of whether the traditional continental European structure of administrative law enforcement is in conformity with the principles of the ECHR. The narrow interpretation of the prohibition of judicial re-evaluation and judicial deference to competition authorities exhibiting significant expert knowledge is of central importance in this debate.

Jones & Sufrin's EU Competition Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jones ◽  
Brenda Sufrin ◽  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Enforcement Policy ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
European Competition Law ◽  
The Eu

EU Competition Law: Text, Cases, and Materials provides a complete guide to European competition law in a single authoritative volume. Carefully selected extracts from key cases, academic articles, and statutory materials are accompanied by in-depth author commentary from three experienced academics in the field. Thorough footnoting and referencing give a tour of the available literature, making this an ideal text and stand-alone resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as for competition law scholars engaged in specialized study. This seventh edition has been fully updated with detailed coverage and commentary on recent developments. These include the EU Courts’ judgments on Articles 101, 102 and 106 including Intel; cases on the Commission’s enforcement powers and judicial review; new legislation and guidelines on technology transfer; the revised de minimis notice; Commission actions in the digital economy, including the Google case; the directive on damages; and thorough discussion of ongoing developments in competition law such as the Commission's enforcement policy against cartels, the appraisal of mergers, the use of commitments decisions and the compatibility of EU competition procedures with human rights provisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document